He’s baaaack. That creationist surgeon, Michael Egnor, keeps flaunting his ignorance — and his verbosity — in the comments.
Your assertion that you answered my challenge ‘perfectly’ is, well, not perfect. I asked for a measurement of new information, not anecdotes about new functions. You and Nick have managed to generate molecular ‘just-so’ stories, anecdotes without actual quantitative measurement, for your central hypothesis that Darwinism can account for biological complexity. I guess ‘just-so’ stories are in your genes.
Egnor is trying to make the argument that evolution cannot increase the information content of organisms over time, a stock creationist claim. He tries to argue that a duplication event doesn’t represent an increase in information. His sole support for this strange claim is that I can’t pin a specific, quantitative number to the example I gave. This is nonsense. It’s a panicky flight into ‘god of the gaps’ apologetics, trying to base his denial on finding something, anything that we don’t know in complete detail.
The Labbe paper I cited is not a just-so story, but is instead a detailed analysis of the population genetics and molecular genetics of a species. It contains data. This isn’t armchair speculation, it’s a primary research paper. If Egnor wants to close his eyes, wave his hands, and pretend it magically disappears, that’s fine; let’s do that to his research, too. Since he’s studying cerebral blood flow, we’ll just say that if he can’t measure in a quantitative way the cognitive effects of fluid transport in the brain, all of his work is vapor. That’s basically what he’s doing, conjuring up spurious calculations he wants in a paper and dismissing the work of value because it doesn’t fit his preconceptions.
In his comment, he then goes on and on about how Shannon information theory doesn’t help my case. Really on and on—Egnor can babble at length when he has nothing to say. It’s particularly peculiar because I plainly said I wasn’t talking about Shannon—he had asked for a change in the information in living things that “does things, specific things”, and I delivered. Even if we can’t easily quantify it, we can say that adding a variant copy of a gene to the mosquito genome represents a change in the information content of that genome, and in the study I cited, they also saw a heritable, beneficial (to the mosquito!) change in the phenotype.
He also goes on at length about how medicine doesn’t need evolutionary theory. That’s true enough, if you are uninterested in improving existing treatments or understanding basic mechanisms. Plumbers do not need to know metallurgy or fluid hydraulics or any physics at all to get their job done; but that isn’t a reason to pretend that those disciplines are of no use to explaining or advancing the work. Egnor reminds me of those pre-meds who really aren’t that interested in understanding the biology of their subject—give them a book to memorize and a collection of recipes to follow, and they’re happy.
The rest of his long comment degenerates into confusion. He asks me to pretend to be a med student in the 1920s, when eugenics was all the rage; I’m not. I’m a biologist in the 21st century who despises eugenics and ‘scientific’ racism. He quote-mines Darwin. He goes on at length about how racism is Darwin’s fault, and we all know how silly that argument is. He ends by praising Behe for raising important questions that Darwinists have avoided for 50 years…unaware that those questions were raised by Herman Muller 89 years ago, and answered—irreducible complexity is not an obstacle to evolution, but an unavoidable consequence of evolutionary and genetic processes.
One very nice thing here is that if you read the comments on that thread that follow Egnor’s interjection, you’ll see him getting steadily dismantled. I suppose I didn’t even need to write this, but it’s fun piling on to someone that oblivious to the basic research he’s criticizing.
Keep it up, everyone!
Oh, and of course, read Mark Chu-Carroll for the shredding of Egnor’s ignorance of information theory.
We can quantify the information in a genome just fine – given a specific context in which we can understand the term ‘information’.
‘Ignore’ refuses to specify a context, then demands that we define a concept that is only meaningful within a context. If we specify the context for him, he rejects it.
If one were able to quantify added genetic information as Mr. Egnor would like us to be able to, rather than indicate that there are genetic changes that are favorable. Here is what the changes are, here is what they do, etc., etc.. …wouldn’t that quantification tend to support Mr. Egnor’s view point, as we would be talking about adding information rather than infofmation occuring and then being selected for optimum reproduction? I am not sure I am saying exactly what I want to, but you guys are all smarter than me and will know what I mean or ignore it very well.
Mike Fox
I wasn’t aware he had gone as such – there being several posts ostensibly from him over some period of time. So how can you tell his presence from his absence, PZ? Is there something distinctive about the smell (or other sensation) of an Egnor peering at your blog which lets you know whether or not he’s hanging around? Or is it as simple as IP monitoring on page fetches as well as posts?
Meanwhile, does the appearance of more Egnor postings mean that there’s more (significant) information from him? Is it really just the same old information (eg from the DI) recycled and mutated a bit? Could he put a measure on it himself?
If Egnor needs to count something, why not let him count the branches in a decision tree. When a duplicated gene originates,(now that’s creationism) it multiplies by from two to some considerably higher number the quantity of “things” that the organism can “do.” Two is an absolute minimum and extremely unlikely multiplier. Somatic alterations times developmental alterations gives an idea of the range of possibilities that evolution creates, and they don’t even have to be viable to be information.
Interesting. Egnor’s original question was:
I see his question has now morphed into:
Is this his implicit recognition that his original objection has been soundly refuted?
If one were able to quantify added genetic information as Mr. Egnor would like us to be able to, rather than indicate that there are genetic changes that are favorable. Here is what the changes are, here is what they do, etc., etc.. …wouldn’t that quantification tend to support Mr. Egnor’s view point, as we would be talking about adding information rather than infofmation occuring and then being selected for optimum reproduction? I am not sure I am saying exactly what I want to, but you guys are all smarter than me and will know what I mean or ignore it very well.
I think one of the problems is that people confuse information as an abstract measurement with a concrete implementation. Simply put, information is technology, not a law of nature. We can use it, as Caledonian says, to describe biological phenomena, but it’s all ad hoc. People using it against evolution do not have a clue what they are talking about, as Egnor has consistently demonstrated.
Lest we forget that defenders of evolution can also be idiots, I have quoted the sentence above.
It is not only grammatically incoherent, but even when interpreted in order to avoid that incoherency, it is grotesquely wrong.
Meanwhile, does the appearance of more Egnor postings mean that there’s more (significant) information from him? Is it really just the same old information (eg from the DI) recycled and mutated a bit? Could he put a measure on it himself?
If we take Shannon value as indicating the “surprise value” of an information string, then I am utterly unsurprised that an IDiot of any stripe would move goalposts, fail to define key terms, and reject any attempt to put those terms into a quantifiable and biologically-relevant form, and therefore Egnor’s posts are completely bereft of information.
Lest we forget that defenders of evolution can also be idiots, I have quoted the sentence above.
It is not only grammatically incoherent, but even when interpreted in order to avoid that incoherency, it is grotesquely wrong.
Not quite Caledonian, but since you seem to insist on being a pedantic asshole again, I’m talking about information as a description and communication method. It is not a basic law or constant of nature, like quantum electrodynamics.
Egnor is trying to make the argument that evolution cannot increase the information content of organisms over time, a stock creationist claim. He tries to argue that a duplication event doesn’t represent an increase in information. His sole support for this strange claim is that I can’t pin a specific, quantitative number to the example I gave.
Regardless of how one is trying to quantify information, I think it is safe to say that two is greater than one. 2n is greater than n (n being the amount of information in a gene, however Egnor wishes to estimate it).
Of course, the only case where 2n isn’t greater than n is where n=0. Maybe Egnor is saying that genes (and perhaps living things) have no information. Couched in Dembskian terms (where information = CSI), this is actually true. But it’s not a very fruitful line of argumentation for the antievolutionist.
Why not ask Prof. Egnor for his definition of biological complexity? Then we can all have a good rational debate.
He says that we generate molecular ‘just so’ stories – unless he can back up his statements I claim that he is repeating ‘just isn’t so’ stories.
It’s clear that Dr. Egnor is a creationist. Now, one wonders how old he thinks god’s “creation” is. . . .
I’d love to hear him address that one.
Has anyone point Mr. Egnor to the Index to Creationist Claims yet? Maybe he’ll find time in his busy schedule to read through the pages upon pages of bullcrap claims, their associated debunking facets, and maybe even a few of the sources.
Ah who’m I kidding? He won’t even read a paper that someone else searched for, and provided the link to, for him. Obviously his mind is not open, otherwise he wouldn’t be asking the same stupid questions over and over and sounding more pompous each time.
As a historian of science, I would like to point out that Egnor’s claims about the “tight” relationship between eugenics and Darwinism is just as suspect as his “scientific” claims about information theory.
IDers point to things like involuntary sterilization as eugenic measures, and they were, but it is doubtful how Darwininian they are. They were based on such medically dubious claims such as “Castration will make these mental patients more tractable” or “Tubal ligation will decrease the sex drive.” Not very Darwinian.
By “eugenics” IDer tend to point to the Holocaust. But there is simply no “tight” relationship between eugenics and the Holocaust and an even more dubious one between “Darwinism” and the Holocaust. Every industrialized or industrializing country had a eugenics program in the early 20th century. Why didn’t every country experience genocide if there is some necessary connection between eugenics and genocide?
I have a couple of questions for Dr. Egnor.
Okuyama et al write:
Would it be fair to say, then, that you reject Okuyama’s hypothesis that susceptibility to CVA is an artifact of hominizing evolution, and that it is your position, instead, that the Creator specifically designed mice with cerebral vasculature less susceptible to CVA than the vasculature he designed for humans?
If that correctly represents your stance, how do you reconcile such a conscious design flaw–compared to another species without that flaw–with benevolent intent?
Thank you–I am genuinely curious.
(Reference: Okuyama S, Okuyama J, Okuyama J, Tamatsu Y, Shimada K, Hoshi H, Iwai J. The arterial circle of Willis of the mouse helps to decipher secrets of cerebral vascular accidents in the human. Med Hypotheses. 2004;63(6):997-1009.)
Quantifying the information is a trivial exrecise providing you specify what information you are talking about. The duplicated gene could be quantified in terms of the number of base pairs if you maen info transmitted to daughter cells, the number of codons if you mean the info used to make a protein etc.
As others have pointed out this is a really crap argument, without foundation.
What is it with creationists and blathering about “just-so stories?” I mean, I know the massive “glass house” issue with that has been discussed already, but don’t they have another stupid slur to use? Are they going to start accusing scientists of not taking up the White Man’s Burden?
Quantifying the information is a trivial exrecise providing you specify what information you are talking about. The duplicated gene could be quantified in terms of the number of base pairs if you maen info transmitted to daughter cells, the number of codons if you mean the info used to make a protein etc.
You’re missing two important details:
His definition of information is anything that cannot be produced by evolution.
His definition of evolution is something that cannot produce information.
Given this sort of argumentation, his logic is simply bullet proof. We can’t beat it.
Since he likes Medline I would suggest that he makes a quick search for ‘gene duplication and (neofunctionalization or subfunctionalization)’.
So information is a method, and quantum electrodynamics is a basic law or constant.
(snicker)(snicker)
So information is a method, and quantum electrodynamics is a basic law or constant.
Yes, QED describes a natural phenomena, information describes a technological method of communicating and describing data.
(By the way, if you insist on being a condescending asshole, you may wish not to confuse “grammar” with “semantics”. That’s quite a notable gaffe for something who obviously prides himself on his pedantry.)
What I don’t understand is this: say there already was a definition of biological information, and that there was a way to quantify changes of information wrt mutations. What use would it be? In other words, will it tell us if such a change is possible? IMO no, that’s what chemistry (reactivity, 3d orientation) does. Can it tell us it’s what happened? IMO no, it’s still only a plausible pathway (or if one prefers, a “just-so story”). So in what way would it be useful?
Like I said before, I’m no biologist or mathematician so if someone can explain this I’d appreciate it. :)
When semantics are screwed up in the right way, the rules of grammar are also violated.
But I don’t think there’s much point in discussing ideas with a person who insists that information is a method (of describing data, no less) and technological.
In other words, will it tell us if such a change is possible? IMO no, that’s what chemistry (reactivity, 3d orientation) does.
IMO this is correct. Random iterations on a string will produce new information, it’s just unlikely to be particularly useful. Aside from the invariance theorem, I’m unaware of anything that could be construed as a conservation law regarding information, which is what people like Egnor seem to be alluding to.
When semantics are screwed up in the right way, the rules of grammar are also violated.
In some cases they are, but not in that instance. Even assuming that you argument regarding my semantics is sound, there were no grammatical errors. Really Caledonian, if you’re going to be pedantic you have to at least get your terminology in order.
But I don’t think there’s much point in discussing ideas with a person who insists that information is a method (of describing data, no less) and technological.
Fine by me, you have proven yourself to be more interested your typical game of being an annoying, snot-nosed asshole anyway. So if you shut up, you won’t find anyone happier about it than I.
Information as Technology? Smells like B.S. to me, and Sounds like Tyler is about to jump into a whole pool of Woo.
Information as Technology? Smells like B.S. to me, and Sounds like Tyler is about to jump into a whole pool of Woo.
It also sounds like you’re Caledonian’s sock-puppet.
If Dr. Egnor really believes that Evolutionary Biology–aka “Darwinism”–has no relevance for practical medicine and isn’t just putting us on (oh what an optimist I am!), he should really listen to the Feb. 18th Podcast from Science Magazine (found here) which delves into the evolution of cancerous cells via random mutation and natural selection and the challenges that the evolutionary nature of cancer poses for scientists and doctors who try to combat it.
There were also two reviews in Nature Reviews Cancer over the course of the last two or three months about the importance of evolutionary theory to understanding cancer. One of them appeared, if I remember correctly, in December, and it was quite long and detailed. The other one is in the March issue, hot off the presses. I haven’t gotten a chance to read it yet, but I have it on my pile of articles to be read. Fortunately, it is not as long as the first one.
It is not only grammatically incoherent, but even when interpreted in order to avoid that incoherency, it is grotesquely wrong.
Said by Caledonian of a sentence which looked fine grammatically to me. And that was the entire comment, followed by a “snicker” in another post, without a single attempt to at least sketch out how Tyler’s comments were wrong. Not exactly reasoned argument.
Is this his implicit recognition that his original objection has been soundly refuted?
also commonly known as “moving the goalposts”.
really quite amazing the common lack of logic exhibited by creobots, no matter how much or little their education.
they should make a new commercial about how cognitive dissonance rots your brain:
“this is your brain on religion”
Is it just me, or do physicians come across as basically “Biological Engineers?” Engineers typically take physics or chemistry and apply the results of others’ science, without really having to worry about the science itself. This is probably why there are so many theist and creationist engineers.
Physicians do the same thing – they don’t need to worry about the science. They take the work that others have done and apply it. That’s why there are so many theist and creationist physicians.
Now, don’t get me wrong; I’m not belittling engineers or physicians. I think that they do great things. I am just postulating on why they ignore the science behind their own field of expertise to embrace fairy tales.
The sort of people who make ID claims are not dissuaded by intellectual arguments at all – neither explaining how they are incorrect nor deriding them for the stupidity of their arguments changes their minds a whit.
Perhaps it’s time to try shame.
Damien,
Thank you. Caledonian apparently decided to be characteristically non-productive with his comments. Him telling me that he doesn’t see it fit to “discuss ideas” with me was all I needed to hear. If his superiority complex helps him sleep at night, that’s his business. I have better things to do.
MarkR,
You point to an interesting phenomenon, which is that certain practitioners of certain fields are inexorably drawn to any idea that places what they do at the root and the apex of everything. I see the same thing among computer scientists, who are drawn-in by the arguments of Wolfram, Fredkin and others that the universe is in some significant, non-metaphorical way a computer. There’s probably just a bit of good old fashioned egotism involved in such a thing.
Mark R., If I may, I’d like to slightly expand your suggestion: “Is it just me, or do physicians come across as basically ‘Biological Engineers?'”
I’d like to slice the salami more thin, into:
(1) Science;
(2) Technology;
(3) Engineering.
I know of 3 major paradigms that link these.
(A) The USA model (before the Anti-Science administrations): First, do basic Science for its own sake. Second, develop technologies from that, both from what instruments were developed to do the Science, and from what Science indicated was possible for new Technology. Third, apply cost-benefit analysis, design principles, and the like, to do useful Engineering from those technologies. Fourth, after you’ve done so for top-priority missions such as a Moon race, a Manhattan Project, or the like, commercialize the process and engineer consumer products for domestic and export use.
(B) The German model: First, do basic Technology for its own sake. Second, do Science from that. Third, apply cost-benefit analysis, design principles, and the like, to do useful Engineering from those technologies. Fourth, after you’ve done so for top-priority missions such as the V-1 and V-2, dominating the Chemical indutries, or the like, commercialize the process and engineer consumer products such as automobiles for domestic and export use.
(C) The Japanese model (before the trillion dollar debt overhang and liquidity crisis): First, decide what consumer products can be used and exported profitably. Second, decide what technologies are needed to make those, Third, apply cost-benefit analysis, design principles, and the like, to do useful Engineering from those technologies, namely for those consumer products. Fourth, do what Science is needed to have the technology and engineering needed for the next cycle.
I’ve oversimplified considerably. I’ve left out the USSR’s 80-year boom and bust, which peaked in 1957 with Sputnik and a 6% growth rate of GNP and 12% growth rate of Military-Industrial Complex. I’ve left out the crucial role of China and India, as those compete to see who runs the Solar System by 2100.
But, with all due respect to Islamic Science, and Islamic and Persian and Oriental mathematics and science that dominated the world when Europe was in Dark Ages, the Third World has dropped the ball, and the Islamic world retrogressed because of 3 counter-revolutions that put Theocracy first, and Enlightenment last.
And isn’t that what the Creationists and Young Earthers and Intelligent Designers and “We are a Christian Nation” wingers de facto want to do to the USA?
A surgeon should not fall for this, due to the Oath of Hippocrates. First, Do No Harm. Killing the education of Evolution, and Physics,and Cosmology, and Information Theory, and Communications Theory, and Freedom of the Press, and Freedom of Speech, and a Round Old Earth, would indeed harm the USA as much as dogmatists did to knock Islamic science, technology, and medicine off its pedestal.
Or perhaps he’d like to work side-by-side with my brother-in-law, who did surgery with a pocket knife in the beseiged Embassy in Cambodia, and behind the battle lines in Angola, using torn clothing for bandages and boiled string sutures. I, for one, do not want my country demolished to an impovershed, invaded backwater, in the Name of Jesus.
I finally found that article about information theory that I thought had been mentioned at the Panda’s Thumb…. turns out it was mentioned at the now defunct blog Beware of the Dogma. I was right about part of my hazy memory of it though: it was (allegedly) written by Dawkins. Here it is.
in one of the other threads on the subject of Egnor, the fact that George Williams was also a representative of Stony Brook was raised.
for those of you who don’t know who that is:
http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/people/williamsindex.html
kind of the polar opposite of Egnor.
I think it would be a great idea to email Dr. Williams, who I’m sure (if he hasn’t done so already) would probably be happy to bitch-slap his out-of-bounds colleague.
his email is on the site link above.
. Simply put, information is technology, not a law of nature.
Simply put, there is no grammatical error here. So what do you mean exactly by “grammatically incoherent”?
When semantics are screwed up in the right way, the rules of grammar are also violated.
How? The rules of grammar are not violated even with this very semantically screwed up sentence, “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.”
Another aspect of information has to do with extant strains in a population. If an organism has children, and some are mutants (or recombinants), then the population has more information than if the children were exact clones. Few natural populations are clonal, so a population generally comprises far more information than that of a single organism. A varied population can often explore more of the available adaptive landscape.
In a sexually reproducing population, virtually every single member can be genomically unique. To completely describe such a population not only requires sequencing an archetypcal genome, but the distribution of every allele, and the accumulation over generations of a variety mutations.
We sometimes forget we are using a very limited example when we consider a single mutation followed by immediate selection. Every mutation in a subset of a population represents variation, and therefore, information. And variation is the norm, not the exception, and variation is the source of evolution’s power.
Tyler: I have no dog in this fight and if you’ve followed these threads you know that I am *very* unlikely to be Caledonian’s sock-puppet.
Still, I’m puzzled by your brief ‘information as technology’. There must be detail here I missed: could you elaborate?
Also, this gloss seems irrelevant to your other observation, which is that Doc-to-be-Ignored is defining evolution and information in ways that make them mutually exclusive. It seems to me that one could still press this creationist to provide a definition which is generally applicable to cases in engineering, computer science or biology without getting too technical; I’m pretty confident that we could then puncture it with a few well-chosen examples. What do you think?
Cordially….SH
I have related the details of Egnor’s quotemining of Darwin on the other thread. Darwin was really discussing possible evolutionary mechanisms in modern societies, and didn’t claim that vaccination was regrettable. In fact, he argued that surgeons (!) should save their unfit patients. The source for the quote is here: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_05.html.
Several others have already commented why one should consider populations in some cases when discussing information, and this seems to be such a case. See also the link to Chu-Carroll’s thread, where regular commenter von Post above refers to such a model he is studying.
It is now known that no single information (complexity) measure can capture all regularities. ( See for example http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990Natur.344..705M .) One must choose the measure that captures the physics of the specific model.
(And currently there is very little use of information theory in physics and computer science outside some specific uses. Especially QM has very little done in this regard. Egnor should heed this before claiming without support that information is necessary in a specific description. These facts also bears on the Caledonian/DiPietro debate, btw.)
I have related the details of Egnor’s quotemining of Darwin on the other thread. Darwin was really discussing possible evolutionary mechanisms in modern societies, and didn’t claim that vaccination was regrettable. In fact, he argued that surgeons (!) should save their unfit patients. The source for the quote is here: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_05.html.
Several others have already commented why one should consider populations in some cases when discussing information, and this seems to be such a case. See also the link to Chu-Carroll’s thread, where regular commenter von Post above refers to such a model he is studying.
It is now known that no single information (complexity) measure can capture all regularities. ( See for example http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990Natur.344..705M .) One must choose the measure that captures the physics of the specific model.
(And currently there is very little use of information theory in physics and computer science outside some specific uses. Especially QM has very little done in this regard. Egnor should heed this before claiming without support that information is necessary in a specific description. These facts also bears on the Caledonian/DiPietro debate, btw.)
It’s a category error: an abstract and general class is said to be a member of a concrete and specific subclass, indicated by the word order.
There’s no way to rearrange those words to form a comprehensive statement. Specificially, it’s not their order that causes the problem.
Egnor is just another example for how religion requires you to be intellectually blind. Since Egnor is probably not stupid, he has to completely shut out any criticism of his belive system. otherwise he would become aware of the countless contradictions in his bible stories and the whole thing would collapse.
becaue that would probably cause a deep emontinal crisis, this psychological mechanism of self-protection is necessary to him.
However, since we deal here with a psychological phenomenon, it is useless to try to argue reasonably and try to convince him. whatever new arguments you bring in (e.g. numbers, examples, papers), he will always say “yes, but that does not count as evidence” or “that has been refuted before…”.
It is a waste of time. apparently, there will always be people who simply need some god-stories because they are not able to give a meaning to their lives by themselves.
we can just hope that they never (again) get to be leaders of our countries.
P.Z.,
Time to distill our discussion. After sifting out the insults and threats against me for simply asking a fairly obvious rhetorical question, an objective reader would conclude that Darwinists can’t prove their central hypothesis, that RM+NS can fully account for biological complexity. You don’t even know how to measure it.
To make matters worse, your assertion that Darwinism is indispensable to medicine is fact-free too. No physician in your ranks has provided me with a specific example in which the failure to take RM+NS into account would impair medical research or medical care.
You should register with the IRS as a religious denomination. You’re evidence exempt. Why not be tax exempt?
Mike
Well, if the idiot Egnor is obsessed with Shannon entropy, simply give him two identical-length sections of genome with a single point mutation. There’s basically a 50/50 chance that the information (as measured by Shannon) will go up from it, as it will either take the distribution of the alphabet towards or away from a uniform distribution.
Of course, Shannon information (as most information measures) is maximised when the string is uniformly random, and has no real correspondence with the `useful’ information contained in the genome (i.e. its ability to correspond to useful proteins), especially since it intrinsically ignores the sequence of the symbols.
This is the main issue (as pointed out in other comments) – information is simply a concept, and has no actual existence. There are a ton of different measures of `information’, and they all measure something different depending on what you’re interested in.
If you start assuming that information is somehow real and magical (as all Creationists do) you’ll start to wonder where all the information from dropped packets in the internet goes and then, frankly, there’s no hope for you.
Of course, Egnor is implicitly using the standard Creationist definition of information, which is “a quantity that never increases with evolution”.
Damn, I realised that I misread the article (blame the lack of caffeine), and that Egnor has already correctly recognised the pointlessness of Shannon entropy with regard to biological `information’. To be fair to him, he’s made more progress than most Creationists on that front (cf. Dembski) ;)
However, I think a good way of looking at the information problem is to look at genetic algorithms, in which case there are no unknown steps.
So, I take a complex function, of which I have no idea what the global optimum is, then apply a evolutionary algorithm to it (e.g. Differential Evolution) and afterwards I know what the global optimum is.
I think anyone would have to agree to that I now have more `information’ that I had to begin with, and that the information was generated by the GA. It cannot be argued that I put the information in when I programmed the GA, as I did not have the information during its creation (otherwise I would not need to program it!).
Trying to quantify the amount of information I have gained would be quite difficult and probably not even meaningful (and, even if it was, only meaningful in a very specific context), but the fact that it has been gained is indisputable.
Dr. Egnor said:
“After sifting out the insults and threats against me….”
And how would you have felt, sir, if followers of the First Church of Christ, Scientist, would have written to you telling you that the decision was in the Lord’s hands, and you had no business performing radical surgery on young Bobby Palange, particularly when only “a handful of small studies within the past decade have pointed to more positive outcomes”? Would you have felt more than a little irritated with them? (See http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-bobby-main,0,2693050.story?page=8&coll=ny-linews-utility .)
Dr. Egnor also said: “You’re evidence exempt.”
I suggest, sir, that you read the articles cited in response to your challenge with the same care, lack of prejudice, and desire for knowledge with which you obviously read that “handful of small studies.” Those articles were written by people as brilliant and as eminent in their field as were the authors of the studies of that surgical procedure, and deserve the same sober scientific consideration by you.
Shorter Egnor: “La la la la, I can’t hear you! La la la!”
Dr. Frank,
Thanks for your comment, and I agree. There’s no question that a random process (meaning ‘one not directed by an intelligent agent’) can produce some information, however it is measured. But the question is how much, and the question really matters.
Typographical errors can alter a text in ways that occasionally change the meaning of the text, and in that sense may add new information. But we would never ascribe a long complex text (Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’) solely to an accumulation of typographical errors. The limits to which non-intelligent variation can produce complexity are real.
What is the statistical boundary at which one may say that an event (eg generation of a meaningful English text) can’t happen without intelligent agency? Some mathematicians have tried to define it. Emile Borel suggested that it was between one chance in 10^50 and one chance in 10^150. Because of the large combinatorial space of the English alphabet, that’s merely a standard English sentence.
This accords with ordinary experience. We accept slight word variations as typos, but not complete sentences.
I question the adequacy of RM+NS as a complete explanation for biological complexity for scientific, not religious, reasons. I’m a Catholic, and I believe in God, but if RM+NS were shown (quantitatively, by data) to be adequate, it wouldn’t destroy my faith. Aquinas suggested 5 proofs of God’s existence. I can live with 4. I agree with Ken Miller’s assertion that it is possible that God’s action in the natural world might, in some respects, be indistinguishable from randomness. We cannot always expect to discern divine cause and effect clearly.
I oppose Darwinism because it makes excessively radical evidentiary claims. The adequacy of RM+NS is not proven. It’s not even been tested, in any systematic quantitative way.
I think that some of the venom directed by Darwinists against IDers is a fear that RM+NS might prove inadequate, if systematically tested by measurement. If you’re an atheist, and RM+NS is shown to be inadequate to explain biological complexity, you’ve got a bad case of cognitive dissonance. Hence, the venom, and the chaff.
Mike
We don’t. Evolutionary change involves both variation and selection. That permits the solution space to be narrowed down quite efficiently.
Why say that? Some forms of stupidity require intelligence. The evidence strongly indicates that Egnor is a deeply stupid man.
…I think that some of the venom directed by Darwinists against IDers is a fear that RM+NS might prove inadequate, if systematically tested by measurement. If you’re an atheist, and RM+NS is shown to be inadequate to explain biological complexity, you’ve got a bad case of cognitive dissonance. Hence, the venom, and the chaff….
What I meant to say before I pressed post instead of preview…
Dr Engor wrote I think that some of the venom directed by Darwinists against IDers is a fear that RM+NS might prove inadequate, if systematically tested by measurement. If you’re an atheist, and RM+NS is shown to be inadequate to explain biological complexity, you’ve got a bad case of cognitive dissonance. Hence, the venom, and the chaff.
Actually, the venom directed by proponents of Evolution towards Intelligent Design proponents is due to the terrible little fact that IDers have never been able to show any effort or desire to so much as test their pet hypothesis. To claim that ID is “correct” simply because its opponents are afraid of it is an arrogant lie.
Or it could be that you people are actually that stupid.
No, that can’t be it. We must be compensating for our deep-rooted fear that God actually exists and we’ve been denying him. Good call!
Why? I’m currently playing around with genetic algorithms, and I honestly don’t give a toss how much information they produce. Clearly, the obvious answer is ‘however much is required to produce the observed results.’ Now, if someone came along and said that they didn’t believe my GA was actually producing enough information to explain the results I was getting, and that therefore some unknown (and possibly unknowable) external agent must be manipulating the innards of my computer in some unknown (and possibly unknowable) way…well, that would be on them to demonstrate, wouldn’t it?
I was wondering if you’d hit your head, or something.
Mike writes:
“I oppose Darwinism because it makes excessively radical evidentiary claims. The adequacy of RM+NS is not proven. It’s not even been tested, in any systematic quantitative way. ”
Do you believe that ID or creationism has sufficient evidence to warrasnt giving either ‘alternative’ the time of day?
On a related note, considering your stance of the Terri Schiavo debacle, and your grasping at the ‘information’ straw, I have a hard accepting that your resistence to ‘Darwin’ is premised solely on anything scientific.
But, since you fancy yourself informed re: information, answer this challenge:
Is the following an example of an increase in information or not? And if not, why not?
===================
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/297/5590/2253
A Single P450 Allele Associated with Insecticide Resistance in Drosophila
P. J. Daborn,1 J. L. Yen,1 M. R. Bogwitz,2 G. Le Goff,1 E. Feil,1 S. Jeffers,3 N. Tijet,4 T. Perry,2 D. Heckel,2 P. Batterham,2 R. Feyereisen,5 T. G. Wilson,3 R. H. ffrench-Constant1*
Insecticide resistance is one of the most widespread genetic changes caused by human activity, but we still understand little about the origins and spread of resistant alleles in global populations of insects. Here, via microarray analysis of all P450s in Drosophila melanogaster, we show that DDT-R, a gene conferring resistance to DDT, is associated with overtranscription of a single cytochrome P450 gene, Cyp6g1. Transgenic analysis of Cyp6g1 shows that overtranscription of this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance. Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally. This allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5′ end of the Cyp6g1 gene.
Mike Egnor said (Message #50):
This really is the floppiest and most ineptly stuffed of straw men. I’m not aware of any scientist who thinks that mutation and natural selection are the sole and exclusive mechanism of evolution. There’s no shortage of evidence that they constitute an important mechanism, but adequate to explain everything? Even Darwin didn’t claim that. Few “Darwinists” would deny the role of other mechanisms like genetic drift and endosymbiosis (although they may well have a lively debate over the scale of their respective contributions to evolution), and few would deny the possibility that there might well be other, undiscovered mechanisms.
Then you’d be wrong. If mutation and selection alone are inadequate to explain biological complexity, then all this means is that there are other mechanisms (known or unknown) at work. It would not make ID any more scientifically plausible, since ID must stand or fall on it own merits if it is to be taken seriously as an empirical hypothesis. And it would have no relevance to one’s religious beliefs (or lack of same). Atheism might commit you to a naturalistic understanding of how biological complexity arises, but it does not commit you to a particular mechanism.
Dr. Egnor said:
“I oppose Darwinism because it makes excessively radical evidentiary claims. The adequacy of RM+NS is not proven. It’s not even been tested, in any systematic quantitative way.”
But Doctor, how would you know that – i.e., what qualifies you to make the statement that the theory of evolution, in its modern version, “makes excessively radical evidentiary claims”? If I were to have made a statement to you that the claims for the partial skull removal surgery you performed on Bobby Palange were “excessively radical” and “untested in any systematic quantitative way,” how would you evaluate whether to listen to me or not? Surely you would want to know whether I had sufficient knowledge and expertise in the field to make my opinion valuable, and of course you could also have pointed to your successful surgery as evidence of the procedure’s efficacy.
In your case, you have not indicated any appreciable knowledge or expertise regarding the field of evolution, and you clearly don’t know about the systematic, quantitative studies, and experimental and other supporting evidence. How would you react to such an individual questioning your surgical techniques? Wouldn’t you feel he was wasting your time?
Thousands of good, dedicated, sincere, smart people have devoted decades to the rigorous study of aspects of evolutionary theory, and have produced mountains of detailed data as a result. Some of these data have supported then-current aspects of the theory; some have proved then-current aspects of the theory were incorrect and needed revision. In this way, the theory itself has continuously evolved, much like surgical practice.
If you wish to question this accumulated body of knowledge, please go ahead. But if you want your questioning to be of value, rather than wasting time with theories that in many cases were old when Darwin was young, then it is up to you to develop the same level of expertise you would require of a medical student questioning the efficacy of a surgical procedure. The expertise is available. So it’s up to you – will you learn, so that your questioning can help science progress, or are you content to be a dilettante?
I am typically not a poster on this blog…so many people already contribute to a large degree. But I loved this reply from Dr. Egnor…
I assume you see ID as the Second Way…
Care to explain how the other 4 hold up? As flimsy as this one was, I fear for the others. In fact, I believe they are already dead.
Dr. Egnor wrote:
“Thanks for your comment, and I agree. There’s no question that a random process (meaning ‘one not directed by an intelligent agent’) can produce some information, however it is measured. But the question is how much, and the question really matters.”
Can you explain how it matters? Will it tell you:
1. What mutations (or series of mutations) can happen?
2. What mutations (or series of mutations) *will* happen?
3. What the net result of those mutations (or series of mutations) will be?
4. that the (speculative) evolution is something different than a “just-so story”?
Darwin-ISM?
What the hell is that?
.
Really, Dr. Egnor, one surgeon to another, I really think that you should read up on evolutionary theory more recent than, say 1859. I can’t think of any modern evolutionary biologists who claim that RM+NS is the be-all and end-all of evolution and that it is all that’s necessary to explain the diversity of life; there’s sexual selection, genetic drift, and a number of other processes. Even if there all of these prove insufficient to explain the diversity of life, that would still not make ID any more plausible or any better supported by the evidence. All it would mean is that there is another mechanism contributing that we do not understand yet. You might argue that it is ID; however, it would then be incumbent upon you to produce some actual scientifically compelling evidence to show that it is indeed ID. So far you and other ID advocates have failed utterly at this.
In any case, your sole focus on NS is a straw man version of modern evolutionary theory. Please stop bringing shame upon our mutual profession and take the time to learn a little something about modern evolutionary theory before pontificating again.
Please.
“Darwinism” is a term used by either some historians of science who refer to the original supporters of Charles Darwin’s scientific ideas, such as “Darwin’s Bulldog,” Thomas Huxley, or by creationists who attempt to portray Evolutionary Biology as being some sort of religious cult.
What is the statistical boundary at which one may say that an event (eg generation of a meaningful English text) can’t happen without intelligent agency? Some mathematicians have tried to define it. Emile Borel suggested that it was between one chance in 10^50 and one chance in 10^150. Because of the large combinatorial space of the English alphabet, that’s merely a standard English sentence.
Firstly, I would note that you effectively admit that the evolutionary process can generate information. What, in your opinion, limits this information from gradual increase? Secondly, the standard text/genome analogy really isn’t a good one, which is probably why it is so commonly used: altering letters in English text will almost certainly produce something meaningless and useless, whereas altering an amino acid in a protein, if it causes a change at all, frequently just produces a slight change in function.
Also, I would advise against standard Creationist probability-type calculations. Through mutation and selection you can easily accumulate end up with an outcome that is incredibly probable through a large series of small steps. For example, going back to the GA example (whose efficacy is unquestionable), the probability of uniformly picking a global optimum (to say, 8 decimal places in each dimension) in a high dimensional search space can easily exceed this value, but it can be done highly reliably and with population sizes a miniscule fraction of what you get in biology.
I oppose Darwinism because it makes excessively radical evidentiary claims. The adequacy of RM+NS is not proven. It’s not even been tested, in any systematic quantitative way.
You’re right, in its time (the 19th century) Darwinism probably did make pretty extreme claims. Now, though, the amount of fossil and genetic evidence has thoroughly validated all of its basic tenets. It has made so many predictions of evidence that we would find that has subsequently been found, whilst Creationism has made no such predictions, except for the one that evolution would be thrown out of science every few years (which, oddly, hasn’t come true).
Evolution sets a very exacting set of constraints on what will and will not be found in terms of both fossil and genetic evidence, and these constraints simply have not been violated yet. Dismissing all that as a coincidence or unconvincing is like finding a 80% completed SuDoku puzzle with no contradictions and trying to argue that the numbers were filled in randomly.
Late to the thread, so I apologize in advance if what I am about to add is redundant:
How is it that the religionists out there love to throw around the “just so story” accusation so much? Isn’t “Goddidit” the ultimate just-so story? Are they completely without a sense of irony?
Unless it involves them either metaphorically or literally trampling the charred, smoldering bones of their enemies, no, they are completely without a sense of irony.
Dr. Egnor:
Just because you refuse to read the various direct, detailed, and frequently polite answers you have been given — with all of their supporting examples — this does not equal “that Darwinists [sic] can’t support their central thesis.”
Until and unless you directly address the evidence which has been presented, and demonstrate that it does not mean what people think it means — I don’t mean “handwave it away”, I mean demonstrate this, with detail, logic and counter-example — then yes, all you are doing is ignoring the evidence against your position, sticking your fingers in your ears and singing “la la la la la, I can’t HEEEAAARRR you….!”
=================================================
If you are interested in evidence, then prove it.
===================================================
To an extent, his point remains valid – there doesn’t seem to be a paper giving a measure of an increase in information (though I note he does seem to be backtracking on this and saying he meant a specific sort of information. He still isn’t saying how it would be measured as far as I can tell). Of course, his point also remains irrelevant, as he has not shown that the quantity “information” he denies can be produced by natural processes is necessary to evolution.
At #50, Dr. Egnor said:
The first sentence in this quote has meaning only when one of the multiple technical definitions of “complexity” is defined. Furthermore, even with a definition of “complexity”, it’s an unsupported premise that belies your a priori inclusion of an intelligent agent.
The second sentence is slightly better, asking as a question what the first stated blithely. There’s no correct answer, however, because you’re asking as a general case something that can only be answered in the specific: for a given random process over a given time period, what is the probability that the process will result in a given outcome? The probability may be made arbitratily small depending on the constraints, but in the case of evolution, it doesn’t matter: evolution is not a random process.
What you’re arguing is that order can never arise from randomness, which is false. See this entry of the TalkOrigins faq for a simple rebuttal of the “tornado in a junkyard” objection to evolution.
Exactly, without actually defining the information measure the argument is completely useless.
He may as well say “Well, I say that ooglefloob cannot increase with evolution. Therefore, evolution is false until someone works out a satisfactory quantitative measure of ooglefloob and demonstrates that it can increase over time through evolution”
In the case of ooglefloob, I think you’ll agree, the onus would be on the person making the claim to define what on Earth ooglefloob was and how the hell you were supposed to measure it.
.
To an extent, his point remains valid – there doesn’t seem to be a paper giving a measure of an increase in information (though I note he does seem to be backtracking on this and saying he meant a specific sort of information.
Actually, this paper has been brought to his attention elsewhere, but so far he has neither acknowleged nor challenged it:
Kimura M (1961). Natural selection as the process of accumulating genetic information in adaptive evolution. Genetical Research 2: 127-40.
Kimura came up with an estimate of an increase in information due to natural selection of 0.29 bits/generation.
The insults were deserved, because of such things as your backstabbing association of eugenics to evolutionary biology and your lying quotemining.
Where are the threats?
For example, modern medicines developed by test tube evolution. AFAIK the idea came from evolution theory.
You are alluding to misusing of Borel’s use of a probability bound for a specific case. He noted especially that it wasn’t universally applicable, and no mathematician or physicist thinks otherwise.
Except Dembski, who isn’t publishing peer-reviewed research.
The insults were deserved, because of such things as your backstabbing association of eugenics to evolutionary biology and your lying quotemining.
Where are the threats?
For example, modern medicines developed by test tube evolution. AFAIK the idea came from evolution theory.
You are alluding to misusing of Borel’s use of a probability bound for a specific case. He noted especially that it wasn’t universally applicable, and no mathematician or physicist thinks otherwise.
Except Dembski, who isn’t publishing peer-reviewed research.
You don’t even know how to measure it.
And you haven’t told us how to measure or quantify “it,” which is precisely our point: if you haven’t defined how to quantify “information,” or how to measure the quantity thereof in a given living system, then you can’t even be sure that new “information” is or isn’t being created, let alone whether this is possible.
What is the statistical boundary at which one may say that an event (eg generation of a meaningful English text) can’t happen without intelligent agency?
If you’re going to talk about probability, perhaps you’d care to tell us the probability of God — oops, I mean The Designer — creating exactly the Universe we observe today, and not some other. Is such creation really more probable than Humans evolving as today’s biologists say we did? How would you calculate which event is more probable?
I think that some of the venom directed by Darwinists against IDers is a fear that RM+NS might prove inadequate, if systematically tested by measurement. If you’re an atheist, and RM+NS is shown to be inadequate to explain biological complexity, you’ve got a bad case of cognitive dissonance. Hence, the venom, and the chaff.
I thought you said ID wasn’t about religion.
Also, since you identify yourself as Catholic, would you care to comment on your Church’s explicit doctrinal rejection of creationism and ID, and its equally explicit embrace of plain old “materialistic” science as THE effective and proper means of explaining physical phenomena?
Torbjörn Larsson says:
He especially noted that it weasn’t applicable to the issue at hand, because we don’t have all the relevant data from which to formulate a probability.
From Probability and Certainty, pgs 124-126.
Indeed, neither living beings or even protein molecules are formulated by the random assembly of atoms.
Hat-tip to TalkOrigins archieve.
Exactly. He thought it was regrettable that vaccination would lead to less innate disease resistance, but he didn’t think that was a good reason not to do it.
He said:
“Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.”
PZ, you’re wasting your time on this man. As others have pointed out, his problems are psychological and he won’t stop talking nonsense just because someone presents him with evidence and facts. He’ll just keep projecting every one of his tactics and failures on you. It’s like talking to a determined flat-earther who, while you patiently try to educate him about how one realizes — and can prove — that the earth is round, keeps answering back with “You have no evidence, you have no proof, you have no answers, da da da, the earth is flat, the earth is flat.”
You can’t reason with an unreasonable person.
Somebody help me out, here. I’m not a biologist and I’m honestly confused. Egnor says, “the adequacy of RM+NS is not proven.” Did somebody say it was?
It was my impression that most of the evolutionary research over the last quarter century shows that RM+NS (in the sense of small mutations in genes coding for proteins, followed by gradual changes in population frequencies) is, in fact, not adequate to explain evolution. Specifically:
1. Bacteria change their genomes by absorbing DNA from other organisms as well as by mutating.
2. Eukaryotes are not descended from mutated prokaryotes, but from symbiotic colonies of prokaryotes.
3. Neutral and nearly neutral mutations that are not under strong selection pressures are more important than early evolutionists realized.
4. Catastrophic extinctions followed by the adaptive radiation of a few survivor species (who may not have been particularly successful in normal, small-scale natural selection) have shaped macromutational trends.
5. Mutations in regulatory genes in which genes coding for proteins are simply turned on or off may be more important in evolution than mutations in the genetic coding of individual cell proteins.
6. And as has been already mentioned, the duplication of genes creates, essentially, spare parts that evolution can play with, without messing up an entire gene pool.
Not one of those research areas is blindly supporting RM+NS. So what is Egnor talking about? It’s true that evolutionary biologists have overwhelmingly rejected ID. But they have apparently considered a host of other hypotheses that challenge standard RM+NS. So it seems to me the problem lies with ID, not with the hide-bound nature of the evolutionary biologists.
Or did I get that wrong?
If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??
;-) sorry, just had to throw than in because Egnor’s phrasing of RM+NS just reminded me of “PYGMIES+DWARFS”.
An objective, intelligent and knowledgable reader might notice instead that scientists were never the ones who falsely claimed that possession of some singular measuring rod was an essential component to observing the reality of evolution. It’s the IDiots who claim that, not the well and relevantly educated people.
Why do you require a physician to do it? The presence of that particular qualification wouldn’t alter the facts of reality one whit. Here’s a specific example for you: penicillin.
When penicillin was discovered, physicians (being too ignorant of evolution even then) got smug and thought the game was up for the bugs. Decades were wasted in which researchers should have been looking for alternative antibiotics, against the day when resistance would evolve instead of being complacent. Worse than that, in their enthusiasm over antisepsis they forgot about the importance of asepsis. That, and multiple medical blunders later, brings us to multiply-resistant strains being bred and spread in hospitals today.
Fact: failure to take evolution into account has already impaired medical research and medical care – negatively. It’s not some hypothetical. It’s a done deal that has already happened. Complacency (and ignorance) kills.
I’d still like “Dr.” Egnor to detail what it is exactly he is teaching about Eugenics in his classes on medical ethics.
let’s hear it.
frankly, you can be as insane as you wish, and it IS a sorry thing to hear someone who teaches at the university level project his own religiosity onto those who study evolution, but once you start teaching historical revisionism in a class on ethics, we have a serious problem.
is this the threat you perceive? that someone will actually call you on the lies you yourself have claimed to be teaching?
I think it’s time you take a walk from the neurosurgery dept. over to the mental health dept. and get yourself evaluated.
That’s an irrelevant question – and not because it’s an analogy but because evolution isn’t trying to produce a single meaningful language. It could be just as happy producing French or any other language; or working with whatever else it gets as if it meant something (which indeed it would, simply by the fact of doing something!) regardless of whether you personally agree with the selection that actually occurred or subsequently pretend it was special in some way. You wouldn’t recognise English as a criterion unless you already knew English. Evolution doesn’t need that luxury in order to work.
Untrue. You’ve already demonstrated that you lack the scientific ability/appreciation necessary to have any such scientific reasons. However, that doesn’t leave religion as the only alternative motivation. You might question and reject it for primitive emotional (non-)reasons rather than specific religious ones. There’s no particularly good reason to assume you are rational; and already considerable evidence against such an assumption being true.
You have failed to find any magical barrier which could prevent the combined abilities of duplicating A to A an arbitrary number of times and mutating C to U etc from producing more “information” – under any possible and meaningful definition of “information”. You have also failed to find any magical barrier which could prevent the complexities of the environment from acting in various ways to select (quite unintelligently and unintentionally), from the effective infinity of options which could have been produced, by favouring some over others.
If you’re an atheist, and RM+NS is shown to be inadequate to explain biological complexity, you’ve got a bad case of cognitive dissonance. Hence, the venom, and the chaff.
now, class, who can tell me what this is a perfect example of?
anyone?
Projection.
say it with me…
P-R-O-J-E-C-T-I-O-N
Clearly, the good doctor is the one suffering from extreme dissonance.
not too late for Egnore to seek treatment. Isn’t there a decent mental health dept. at Stony Brook?
here ya go, Mikey, you should schedule an appointment ASAP:
http://commcgi.cc.stonybrook.edu/am2/publish/Health_Care_Experts_13/Psychiatry_Mental_Health_930.shtml
I know she’s a specialist in PTSD, but I hear surgeons are under constant stress anyway, so maybe she’s perfect for you?
can anyone tell me the percentage of creobots who, when challenged on their ignorance of science, end up claiming themselves victims of atheist agendas and hatred, just like Mikey did?
It’s gotta be close to 100%
Hey, Mikey..
hate to spout such a trite saying but if you can’t take the heat…
One thing that I find most disconcerting about creationist/ID supporters is their lack of willingness to show the boundaries between natural selection and what cannot be natural selection. In strict YEC kinds and baramins are given for limits of evolutionary processes. ID does not even come close to making any claim of this type. So, One thing that should be asked of Egnor is:
“What are the boundaries that evolutionary processes cannot accomlplish?”
ID advocates seem not to be able to give anything even close to an answer. Somewhat connected to this is what re the boundaries of other natural processes in geology and cosmology. Behe, for instance, has no objection to an old earth and evolution doing a lot of the work, with some ID fitting in to accomplish unspecified things at unspecified times. Others in the ID camp seem to think that ID does a lot more than what Behe allows, but still cannot even give a clue about the boundaries between natural and supernatural causes. Where are your boundaries, Dr. Egnor?
“What are the boundaries that evolutionary processes cannot accomlplish?”
that question only applies to someone who can at least demonstrate SOME understanding of what those processes are to begin with.
In Egnor’s case, when asked he would merely examine his army of strawmen, and would end up producing the requisite nonsensical answer to your question.
Egnor hasn’t even gotten as far as having knowledge of what the actual ToE entails, so your question is at best, premature.
Egnor, throwing down the other day:
“Show me the evidence (journal, date, page) that new information, measured in bits or any appropriate units, can emerge from random variation and natural selection, without intelligent agency.”
Egnor again:
“I believe in God…”
Egnor a few sentences later:
“I oppose Darwinism because it makes excessively radical evidentiary claims.”
What a livid joke. How do you argue with someone who claims to place a remarkably high premium on evidence (never mind that the evidence for “Darwinism” he finds wanting is blaring at him from every direction), yet thinks that “God exists until proven otherwise” is a reasonable constitutive position?
Thomas Aquinas’ philosophically infantile “proofs” are sufficient for belief in a perfect (yet remarkably incoherent), all-powerful (yet curiously impotent) sky-demon, but the ever-growing body of facts assembled in the past 150 years supporting “Darwinism” is not?
Hey, Mike! Can God make a glioblastoma so amazingly huge and aggressive that even He can’t excise it?
Tell me this guy doesn’t go to work with a stone chisel, a croquet mallet, and fifth of Jack Daniels in him. Better yet, tell me he’s only saying this stuff because he lost a bet or because someone has some serious dirt on him.
Tell me this guy doesn’t go to work with a stone chisel, a croquet mallet, and fifth of Jack Daniels in him. Better yet, tell me he’s only saying this stuff because he lost a bet or because someone has some serious dirt on him.
never underestimate the power of cognitive dissonance to undermine the ability to reason.
It’s how one ends up be so damaged that burning witches seems a perfectly rational decision, for example.
fascinating to see it in someone who at least at some level, must realize what has happened to him (based on the assumption he at least at some point in his career has been exposed to the field of mental health care).
Behe, for instance, has no objection to an old earth and evolution doing a lot of the work, with some ID fitting in to accomplish unspecified things at unspecified times. Others in the ID camp seem to think that ID does a lot more than what Behe allows, but still cannot even give a clue about the boundaries between natural and supernatural causes. Where are your boundaries, Dr. Egnor?
They have to be vague, it’s required to hide from the absolute idiocy being specific brings to light. For example, I’d love for Egnor or any IDer/creationist to explain to me, per their hypothesis, what I would see were I staring right at the point of design, at the moment of design. Would I be looking at a bacteria sans flagellum one moment and a bacteria with flagellum some time later? How long? Would it phase in, or would it just pop into place like 70’s sci fi? And how did the bacteria manage to get around prior to that? Or was it floating in the air, soon-to-be Adam of it’s species, prior to the flagellum being energized?
There is no answer to these questions that doesn’t make clear the lunacy in their view. Well, except one, their favorite dodge: “We are concerned about design detection and nothing else!”. “Scientists” with no interest in the questions their hypothesis poses? Riiiiiiiight.
Behe, for instance, has no objection to an old earth and evolution doing a lot of the work,
phillip Johnson, the putative “inventor” of ID, however, does indeed have a problem with old earth, and also appears to have a problem with HIV as the root cause of aids as well.
Now wouldn’t it be even MORE ironic if Mikey Egg-on-farce is also an HIV denier?
so what about it mikey? Just how much well-established science are you willing to deny?
Let me get this straight: There is a type of information that cannot be measured using any of our tried and true tools of information theory. Nobody has a measure of how much of this information exists in anything, nobody can describe it, and nobody can measure its rate of change. Yet, after all this, evolutionary theory’s inability to explain its obvious abundance (?!!) is a death blow? What should we call this quantity? Evolutioncantcreateitropy?
By any meaningful definition of entropy, your challenge is met. Inventing a new type of information that exists solely in your imagination may be fun, and it may be interesting if you can put some equations on paper, but it’s not a good place to start if you aim to mathematically prove something that’s contrary to simple observation.
There’s a measure of electric potential that electromagnetic theory can’t explain. I can’t measure it and I can’t describe it, but there’s lots of it out there. I challenge the physicists of the world to figure out what I’m thinking of, quantify it, and show me that their equations conserve it. Until they do that, their theory has a gaping hole in it.
From Dembski’s conclusion in the last chapter of The Design Inference, (his only reviewed work) page 229:
Egnor better let Dembski in on the straight dope. Or vice versa.
Troublesome Frog, I think you distilled that remarkably well.
Thanks, Luna. Dr. Egnor is using a different tactic from most people who go the mathematical route. The typical form of the argument is, “Information theory proves me right!” with no actual calculations. This is usually followed by strained definitions and equivocation about the word “information.”
Dr. Egnor seems to be switching things up: He doesn’t say that information theory proves him right. Instead, the claim is that there is a secret form of information theory that would prove him right if somebody would formalize it, and until biologists fail to prove him wrong, his argument stands.
Typically, demanding that other people formalize your hunches to refute a devastating proof that you haven’t yet formulated isn’t a successful tactic, but it seems to have generated quite a lot of noise in this case. His position is even more loosely clothed false mathematical authority than Dembski’s, but he’s managed to get serious press nonetheless. Kudos to him for that.
Again, I would have to agree. It occurred to me this morning, though, that there is another logical fallacy at issue here.
I’m going to cheat a little, and repost here what I posted first at Good Math, Bad Math.
There seems to be an additional basic logical fallacy that he is committing, at the root of the deliberate vagueness about how one defines “biological information”.
He argues that “biological information” cannot be defined and/or accurately quantified. Ok, for the sake of argument, let us accept that as being the present case. Note that at this moment in time, he is NOT arguing that the impossibility of accurately defining or quantifying it means that it doesn’t exist. He seems to accept the existance of such “information”, despite his claim that it cannot be quantified.
However, he then turns around and claims that, because we cannot accurately quantify information, we therefore cannot accurately quantify change in this information, and we thus cannot quantify how Darwinian processes (no, they are evolutionary processes anyway, dammit) function to increase this information. Therefore we cannot either claim or show that such processes do increase information. In other words, because we can’t put an exact number to it*, we cannot make predictions about it or even demonstrate that it exists.
The problem to me seems that the world — especially the rather squishy world of biology — is full of continua, and difficult-to-quantify analog phenomena. Take, for example, pain. An ongoing medical challenge is how to quantify the entirely subjective experience of “chronic pain”. About the best that can be managed so far is to have people self-rate their experience on a scale of 1 to 10, which is about as close as you can get to completely undefined and still have something you can write down on paper.
Nevertheless, I’m going to go out on a limb here (so to speak), and propose the idea that if I take a baseball bat to someone’s knees, this process will vastly increase their pain, both in the short term and on a long-term basis.
But I cannot quantify the exact degree to which this does so.
Therefore, by Egnor’s claim, I would not legitimately be able to predict that it would increase the target individual’s pain at all.
I wonder if the good Dr. would be amenable to experiment?
To my mind, what he’s doing is an example of “confusing the map with the territory.” If a phenomenon is consistently demonstrable with predictable results — even if you cannot exactly quantify the level of those results — then the lack of quantification reveals a hole in the tools you use to describe reality, not a hole in reality.
Or would anyone like to pick that apart?
———————————-
* except that, as has been pointed out, a variety of people have posted up references to papers specifically demonstrating how to put a number to change in “biological information”.
Dave, thank you, I stand corrected.
I probably misremembered another case, since it is generally agreed that there can be no universally bound.
Dave, thank you, I stand corrected.
I probably misremembered another case, since it is generally agreed that there can be no universally bound.
PZ,
The man won’t. Shut. Up.
This was written April 13th.
He can’t even get the mechanism correct.
Assuming that he intended to refer to the mechanism of variation and selection, then the answer is that evolution can produce any arbitrarily chosen pattern, and thus no matter how we define “biologically-relevant information”, the processes of evolution can produce any arbitrary amount of it.
Some patterns might be fundamentally unlikely for evolution to generate, but it has yet to be established that any such patterns actually exist in the known universe. It has been previously demonstrated that evolution is perfectly capable of producing systems that cease functioning (in any useful, biological sense) when a part is removed, which counters the unsupported claims of IDists to the contrary.